Stupid Question?

my impression in vietnam was, that they are a quite normal SEA country with a rapidly evolving economy. they have a socialist government which is sticking to the socialistic ideas, because the USA tried to force them not to be socialist - at least that was my impression. If the US hadnt invaded Vietnam, I think they would have gone through some years of socialism and skipped the idea when the ASEAN econmy started growing rapidly.

So, yes, they are socialists, but I think they are just not living it by the book anymore. They just fought very hard with so many casualties to get the freedom to choose socialism that they will hardly just skip it officially.

It was about awarding contracts for weapons so that friends of friends could make some good money!

<blockquote>Quote
<hr> it was the south (Democratic) against the north (Communist) <hr></blockquote>

The Diem regime in the South was in fact a brutal , corrupt dictatorship dominated by one family and their cronies who garnered no opposition and who were funded and militarily trained by the US government.When the regime was so unpopular that they became a liability the CIA later supported a coup by ARVN generals who then proceeded to govern with the US controlling the strings.This was followed by a series of other unstable US-created and backed administrations until the time of reunification. A democracy it certainly wasnt. Even Eisenhower said in the early period that if an election were held 80% of Southern Vietnamese would vote for Ho Chi Minh.

They didnt in the end, as you say, get communism in Vietnam but they certainly won independence from one superpower of the time if not the other(Soviet Union)......

I'm no Vietnam expert, but my impression is that it was about kicking out foreign occupiers (the Americans) and their puppets (the South Vietnamese government) and reuniting Vietnam. For America it was about destroying Communists.
#8, Just because the American military was the "bad" side doesn't mean everything North Vietnam did was justified, and that all Vietnamese were satisfied with it- what about all the South Vietnamese who fled after Vietnam was reunified?
As for OP's real question- What's happening in China (which is similar to Vietnam, I'm assuming...) is that the Communists have realized that Communism wasn't working and that they have to introduce capitalism. At the same time they don't want to give up power. They keep talking like Communists because if they admit they've gone capitalist they'll lose legitimacy.
In China a tour guide at a museum who presents views opposed to the government version of things, especially to foreigners, would lose their job, at the least. I'd assume a similar situation in Vietnam.

<blockquote>Quote
<hr>and their puppets (the South Vietnamese government)<blockquote>Quote
<hr>
You should read more books, talk to a lot of people and get a balanced view for forself.
<blockquote>Quote
<hr>the Communists have realized that Communism wasn't working and that they have to introduce capitalism<hr></blockquote>
Agree except one word: should be EMBRACE instead of INTRODUCE.

Any uneducated peasant in the Mekong delta knows communism much much better than any "expert" in Washington.

<blockquote>Quote
<hr>I didn't expect this attitude at all, as I assumed most people would take a balanced view of the events and accept that things aren't always black and white. <hr></blockquote>
You was born and raised in a free country. Different, man.

The 'communism' that exists in China and Vietnam is a new form of communism (which has very little to do with actual communism). The economy is very close to free-market capitalism and the state is still a one party system that is very heavy handed with the media and any attempts to create democracy or question the current system and those in power.

The Vietnam of today is quite different than that of the 1960's and 70's. The war was about the Vietnam (and the global context) of the time. With the country on the verge of joining the WTO, America is quite satisfied with how things are now.

@ 15:
Agree with the first paragragh.
Dissagree with the second one.

>>sarahbernhardt: Even Eisenhower said in the early period that if an election were held 80% of Southern Vietnamese would vote for Ho Chi Minh.<<

It's a possibility, however, not a very cogent argument on Eisenhower's part.

>>They didnt in the end, as you say, get communism in Vietnam but they certainly won independence from one superpower of the time if not the other(Soviet Union)...... <<

You mean to say they replaced one superpower for another?

I guess my point was Quasi that it is a myth that the North were communist and the South democratic .There was nothing democratic about the regime in the South within any definition of the concept. Its a convenient grand narrative applied as sure as night follows day where the system represented by successive US administrations-corporate capitalism-is at odds with other world views-ie we democrats, you evil commies, muslims etc.There was overwhelming support for the northern communists in the south whatever one thinks of that and despite the fact that there were dissenters from this position.

<blockquote>Quote
<hr>You mean to say they replaced one superpower for another? <hr></blockquote>

In effect I think this is exactly what happened and given the spheres of influence of the time and the devastated state of the country post-war perhaps difficult to avoid. Of course the Soviet Union didnt rule directly but its influence and power was considerable and the legacy of its brand of "communism" essentially a capitalist economy under state control run largely for the benefit of the party elites with all the curbing of civil liberties/repression that goes along with it, dominated.The "switch" to a supposedly more free market and competitive business model is also largely a myth as monopoly will be the inevitable result as it is elsewhere in the global economy.Its not such a great leap anyway excepting that more foreign investment is being allowed and some people( most probably largely the same people who have always been privileged )will get considerably richer.Of course the theory is that this wealth will trickle down.....nice theory, wonder how it will fare in the real world...

"Of course the theory is that this wealth will trickle down....."
Now I know where Reaganomics came from.